Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH) juncto Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation Wednesday (8/31/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 | 16:05 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The placement of the Halal Certification Agency (BPJPH) as the organizer of halal product guarantee and supporting element under the Ministry of Religious Affairs is not an issue of norm constitutionality, the Court asserted in its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams in the Decision No. 67/PUU-XX/2022. The decision on the material judicial review of Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH) in conjunction with Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was pronounced on Wednesday, August 31, 2022.
The Court asserted that guarantee of halal products cannot be considered only from the BPJPH’s technical side in the process of obtaining halal certification because obtaining it cannot be separated from the operation of the Halal Registration and Certification Center, the Center for Halal Cooperation and Standardization, and the Center for Halal Product Guarantee Training and Supervision.
Also read: Constitutionality of Halal Certification Challenged
Not Matter of Religion
Justice Wahiduddin also asserted that the Petitioners’ argument that the main duties, functions, and authorities of the BPJPH, especially on standardization, accreditation and certification of halal products, were not a matter of religion, which is under the purview of the Minister of Religious Affairs. The Court asserted that the Ministry delegates the implementation of halal product guarantee to the BPJPH. Meanwhile, the standardization, accreditation, and certification of halal products are part of the BPJPH’s authority in the process of providing halal product guarantee.
“Therefore, if Article 5 paragraph (3) of Law No. 33 of 2014 is omitted because it is declared unconstitutional as the Petitioners [requested], it will cause the rights in Article 28E paragraph (1) and Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution unprotected. Therefore, the Petitioners’ argument that Article 5 paragraph (3) of Law No. 33 of 2014 is unconstitutional is legally groundless,” Justice Wahiduddin asserted.
Also read: Petitioners of Halal Guarantee Law Revise Petitum
Institutional Relations
The Petitioners also argued that the Indonesian Ulema Council’s (MUI) is authorized to set norms, standards, and criteria for product halalness as a substantive religious area. Meanwhile, standardization is under the purview of the National Standardization Agency (BSN) and certification is halal products guarantor institutions (LPH). Therefore, because the above matters are not within the authority of the BPJPH, the Petitioners argued that the BPJPH had taken actions outside its authority and was monopolistic. The Court asserted that the JPH Law had designed the institutional relationships of the BPJPH in exercising its authority, where it does not stand alone but cooperates with relevant ministries and/or institutions. Based on Article 8 of the JPH Law, the BPJPH’s cooperation with these ministries and/or institutions is carried out in accordance with the relevant ministries and/or institutions’ duties and functions. The Court saw no evidence of monopoly of product halal certification by the BPJPH. In fact, Justice Wahiduddin added, to ensure that the halal product guarantee is not misused, the Petitioners as part of a community group should be able to take part in supervising the implementation of the halal product guarantee.
“This includes supervising different halal products, by for example through dissemination by the institutions or organizations as stipulated in Law No. 33 of 2014. Therefore, the Petitioners’ argument that Article 6 of Law No. 33 of 2014 is contrary to Article 1 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 17 paragraph (3), Article 27, Article 28, and Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution is legally groundless,” he added.
Justice Wahiduddin also emphasized that the judicial review of Article 5 paragraph (3) and Article 6 of the JPH Law was in accordance with the principles of checks and balances and good governance and did not create legal uncertainty as stipulated in Article 1 paragraphs (2) and (3); Article 4 paragraph (1); Article 17 paragraph (3); Article 28E paragraph (1); Article 27; Article 28 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); Article 29 paragraph (2); and Article 33 paragraphs ( 1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
“Therefore, the Petitioners’ argument was legally groundless. Meanwhile, the review of Article 48 point 10 of Law No. 11 of 2020, which contains changes to Article 29 paragraph (1) of Law No. 33 of 2014, Article 48 point 15 of Law No. 11 of 2020 which contains changes to Article 35 of Law No. 33 of 2014, Article 48 point 19 of Law No. 11 of 2020 which contains changes to Article 42 of Law No. 33 of 2014, and Article 48 point 21 of Law No. 11 of 2020 which changes Article 48 of Law No. 33 of 2014, it turned out that the Petitioners’ argument was premature,” Justice Wahiduddin stressed.
As such, in its verdict, the Court ruled that the request of Petitioners II, VI-VIII, and XVIII-XX was inadmissible. It also declared the request by Petitioners I, III-V, IX-XVII, and XXI-XXIII relating to Article 48 point 10 of the Job Creation Law, which contains changes to Article 29 paragraph (1) of the JPH Law, Article 48 point 15 of the Job Creation Law which contains changes to Article 35 JPH, Article 48 paragraph 19 of the Job Creation Law which contains changes to Article 42 JPH, and Article 48 point 21 of the Job Creation Law which changes Article 48 JPH were inadmissible. “[The Court] rejects the Petitioners’ petition for the rest and the remainder,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman stressed.
The case No. 67/PUU-XX/2022 on the judicial review of Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH) in conjunction with Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was filed by Ainur Rofiq, Achmad Mutohar, and Muhamad Yusuf (Petitioner I); Mohamad Dahlan Moga, Oheo Kaimuddin Haris, and Safril Sofwan Sanib (Petitioner II); Khoirul Umam and Laily Irmayanti (Petitioner III); as well as 20 others. They challenge Article 5 paragraph (3) and Article 6 of the JPH Law.
At the virtual preliminary hearing on Tuesday, July 5, 2022, legal counsel Anwar Rachman argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the enactment of the JPH Law in conjunction with the Job Creation Law could potentially lead to doubts over the halalness of products circulating in the community, because halal certificates are issued by institutions that are not legally authorized to issue them and have never checked and tested the products in question, without a halal fatwa from an institution that has the competence to declare products halal in a syar’i manner—the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI).
The Petitioners argued that the enactment of both the JPH Law and the Job Creation Law could potentially lead to political intervention because the Halal Certification Agency (BPJPH) was not professional nor independent as it was under the Ministry of Religion, whose minister holds a political position. As a consequence, Indonesian products could face rejections overseas. In addition, it could cause disturbance within the community. It could also threaten micro, small, and medium businesses due to floods of products by bigger producers and of imported products.
The Petitioners argued that the JPH Law in conjunction with the Job Creation Law have more mudharat [(harm)] than good. Therefore, they requested that the Court revoke and invalidate Article 5 paragraph (3) and Article 6 of the JPH Law, Article 29 paragraph (1) of the JPH Law juncto Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Job Creation Law, Article 35 of the JPH Law, Article 42 paragraph (1) of the JPH Law juncto Article 42 paragraph (1) of the Job Creation Law, and Article 48 of the JPH Law juncto Article 48 of the Job Creation Law.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Muhammad Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 9/5/2022 15:46 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 | 16:05 WIB 257